Yep that's what I'm saying. The best management in the world...

Yep that's what I'm saying. The best management in the world might not be able to do it. If the test is something that both good and bad management can fail then it's not a good test of the quality of management.
If you want to infer they're incompetent because they've managed the company so that by the time they were able to farm out they were doing it during a tough time then that's fine by me, I said as much in my first post. If you want to infer their incompetence from any of their actions, from taking BOPL to court on a weak case, from trying to take the OXX money, from being belligerent with every partner they've had and not coming to a deal years ago with BRU that probably would have been better. Then yep, i'm not going to argue.

I just spend a lot of time looking at scientific studies and research methodologies. Any test has to be designed to tell the tester something and I don't think yours does in a reliable way that can make inferences on the lack of passing the test. If I test runners for speed and have both Ursain Bolt and Magda Subanski or Sarah Hanson Young on the track but only test who can finish the 100m in 5 seconds then I can't tell much from that binary position when both runners fail to beat it.

I know it might seem like I'm picking apart a very small point when I got the vibe and the "mabo" of what you were saying, it just sounded funny to have that condition on determining incompetence given if that was your measure of it you would have already concluded it half a dozen times already over the last few years!